MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908029266 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000014025

Early versus late clinical outcomes following same day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention

2019· review· en· W2908029266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongtao Lu, Wenjun Guan, Yanhua Zhou, Hong Bao

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIConfidence intervalAdverse effectCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisEmergency medicineInternal medicineStroke (engine)RevascularizationMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nowadays 57% of the cardiologists based in the United Kingdom and 32% of the cardiologists based in Canada utilize same day discharge (SDD) following elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a routine practice. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically assess early versus late clinical outcomes following SDD after elective PCI. METHODS: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, the Cochrane Central, the Resources from the United States National Library of Medicine (www.ClinicalTrials.gov: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and EMBASE were carefully searched for relevant English publications which reported early versus late clinical outcomes in patients who were discharged on the same day following revascularization by PCI. Relevant clinical outcomes which were reported in the original studies were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data, and RevMan 5.3 was used as the statistical software. RESULTS: A total number of 21, 687 participants (enrollment time period from the year 1998 to the year 2015) were assigned to this analysis. When early versus late clinical outcomes were compared in patients who were discharged on the same day following elective PCI, major adverse cardiac events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.31-1.79; P = .51), mortality (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.06-1.06; P = .06), stroke (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.72-2.94; P = .29), arrhythmia (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.64-2.63; P = .47), hematoma (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.60-1.66; P = 1.00) and major bleeding from access site (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 0.22-12.85; P = .62) were not significantly different. Post-procedural myocardial infarction (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 0.71-5.70; P = .19) and minor bleeding from access site (OR: 6.61, 95% CI: 0.86-50.66; P = .07) were also similarly manifested. However, re-hospitalization was significantly higher in those patients with late clinical outcomes (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.07-0.44; P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: In those patients who were discharged from the hospital on the same day following elective PCI, no significant difference was observed in the assessed early versus late clinical outcomes. However, late clinical outcomes resulted in a significantly higher rate of re-hospitalization. Larger studies should confirm this hypothesis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207